Working hypotheses in science
Working hypotheses in science
Bruce Craven, January 2012
Author
B D Craven is a Reader in Mathematics at Melbourne University until retirement. Still active in mathematical research and writing.
Abstract
Is criticism allowed in scientific debate?
A scientist is constrained by the climate of opinion of others in his area. A recent journalist's article (Booker 2010) states that scientists are under strong peer pressure to conform to majority opinions. Specifically, he asserts that scientists are often not free to doubt aspects of Darwinian evolution, or of the prevailing model (CO2 in the atmosphere) of climate change. This author is perhaps himself a partisan of Intelligent Design (ID), (which is not being advocated here), or a climate sceptic; but something may still be learned from his viewpoint. Without listening to critics, no one can mend the holes in an accepted theory.
Many questions in the field of evolution turn on specialist issues in palaeontology; all that can be done here on such things is to cite references where these matters are surveyed.


